What percentage of people that claim to be Libertarians are actual Libertarians?

Ok, a lot of people claim they are Libertarian, but when you talk to them it seems like most of them are really just typical Republicans that call themselves libertarian because they think it sounds cool or something. You know like they are libertarian because they like low taxes and want few restrictions on gun ownership, but they are also pro big military, don't believe in a constitutional right to privacy, support various attempts at legislating morality and so on.

So what percentage of people that claim to be libertarian do you think are actually libertarian?

SouthernDemocrat said:

Ok, a lot of people claim they are Libertarian, but when you talk to them it seems like most of them are really just typical Republicans that call themselves libertarian because they think it sounds cool or something. You know like they are libertarian because they like low taxes and want few restrictions on gun ownership, but they are also pro big military, don't believe in a constitutional right to privacy, support various attempts at legislating morality and so on.

So what percentage of people that claim to be libertarian do you think are actually libertarian?

Click to expand...

I think you pose a valid question. I have talked to many so-called libertarians that have supported multifarious issues that would require more government. Personally, I believe in freedom at all costs. I believe the government should exist solely to protect the liberties of citizens without interfering or infringing upon other rights of citizens in the process. Most of my ideas align with libertarian philosophy and I even selected libertarian as my political affiliation on here, but I don't particularly like to affiliate myself with a party. I support ideas, not groups or people. Some groups and people just happen to support my ideas more than others and for the time being that group is the libertarian party.

While I think that there are some dissatisfied Republicans whom will self-identify with the Libertarian party, I'm not sure they are a large make up of those who claim libertarianism. There are a lot of aspects of libertarianism which do not line up well with the Republican party, including a very non-interventionist attitude towards foreign relations. The libertarian political philosophy calls for the maximum reduction in government. One thing to keep in mind, especially for those who have a tendency to disparage against the libertarian political philosophy, is that libertarianism is not a "no government" system. It's very much a minimal government system, there is an effort to reduce the size and scope of government but an understanding that some amount of government is necessary. The main purpose of which is to ensure and proliferate the rights and liberties of the individual. There is not only extreme emphasis to the right to keep and bear arms, but extreme emphasis on the full of our rights; which of course includes property and privacy (rights which are well too often trampled by both the main parties).

Libertarians are also very ideological and vocal about their ideals on how government should behave and when it should act. I'm not sure if people who have particular misalignment to major portions of libertarian philosophy can identify as libertarian for long.

Personally, I know a lot of people that claim to be libertarians. Most of them have defended the war in Iraq to me. Defended the suspension of Habeas Corpus for Gitmo Detainees. Defended wiretaps. Defended huge defense spending bills. Were anti-gay marriage (not because they thought that marriage should not even be dealt with in government at all, but rather they used the old slipperly slope argument), and basically held countless views that were "statist".

I have a lot of respect for libertarian ideas. Some I agree with. However I don't know a lot of actual real libertarians.

SouthernDemocrat said:

Personally, I know a lot of people that claim to be libertarians. Most of them have defended the war in Iraq to me. Defended the suspension of Habeas Corpus for Gitmo Detainees. Defended wiretaps. Defended huge defense spending bills. Were anti-gay marriage (not because they thought that marriage should not even be dealt with in government at all, but rather they used the old slipperly slope argument), and basically held countless views that were "statist".

I have a lot of respect for libertarian ideas. Some I agree with. However I don't know a lot of actual real libertarians.

Click to expand...

Personally (I won't speak for every libertarian), I oppose the war in Iraq, I oppose the PATRIOT ACT, I support Civil Unions for homosexuals and heterosexuals (being an atheist, I oppose marriage in general), I oppose gun regulations, I highly oppose big spending, I support separation of church and state, I support the legalization of drugs (though I have never used drugs and I never will), I support legalization of prostitution, et al.

I reiterate, however that I am not loyal to any party. I think my ideas align with the libertarian party, but my loyalty is to the ideas, not the party.

SouthernDemocrat said:

don't believe in a constitutional right to privacy

Click to expand...

There's a Constitutional Right to Privacy? Was that written in invisible ink or something?

SouthernDemocrat said:

Were anti-gay marriage (not because they thought that marriage should not even be dealt with in government at all, but rather they used the old slipperly slope argument)

Click to expand...

There's absolutely nothing wrong with arguing the slippery slope concern when in fact the slippery slope is being used to advance the Gay Agenda.

RiverDad said:

There's a Constitutional Right to Privacy? Was that written in invisible ink or something?

Click to expand...

Ok, I hope you don't mind me using you as an example, but you seem to be a perfect example of what I was just illustrating by the poll.

Its a libertarian party platform that the right to privacy is absolute. They are against even social security numbers because of it.

But really, if you have not made an authoritarian statement then I don't know what is one. The constitution does not grant rights to the people. The constitutional restricts the powers of government. You have a constitutional right to privacy because no where in the constitution is the government given the authority to restrict your right to privacy. In fact, there was a lot of debate among the founders because there was a concern that if they included a bill of rights that someone would come along some day and actually think they were the only rights individuals had.

RiverDad said:

There's absolutely nothing wrong with arguing the slippery slope concern when in fact the slippery slope is being used to advance the Gay Agenda.

Click to expand...

Once again an authoritarian statement. The most fundamental principle of liberty is that your right to live your life the way you choose to do so goes so far as to not impede another individuals ability to do the same. The notion that its ok to restrict the freedoms of one group because by granting that group those freedoms it could be argued that a less desirable group might then be able to obtain them as well is an authoritarian argument.

On the contrary, I think that the right to privacy is inherent in the 4th and 10th amendments. But as you stated, the Constitution puts into place restrictions against the government. It grants the government power and tells the government what it can do and if it doesn't say the government can do something, then the government can not do it. It's not restrictions against the People, who are owners of the government, but rather restrictions against the State which wields the power and soveriegnty of the People. Any body which wields the power and soveriegnty of the People must inherently be restricted in the methods by which it can wield that granted power and duty.

Also the marriage license is a State issued and recognized contract, and the People have the right to contract.

there are four kinds of libertarians:

Secret Republicans: Libertarians that are libertarian until it violates some sacred Republican principle, usually drugs or Israel

Psychos: Compound dwelling heavily armed blackhelicoptertarians

College libertarians: Liberals that like to be faux-intellectual and contrarian with all their Democrat voting friends

Pauligans: Ron Paul cultists.

SouthernDemocrat said:

Ok, I hope you don't mind me using you as an example, but you seem to be a perfect example of what I was just illustrating by the poll.

Its a libertarian party platform that the right to privacy is absolute. They are against even social security numbers because of it.

But really, if you have not made an authoritarian statement then I don't know what is one. The constitution does not grant rights to the people. The constitutional restricts the powers of government. You have a constitutional right to privacy because no where in the constitution is the government given the authority to restrict your right to privacy. In fact, there was a lot of debate among the founders because there was a concern that if they included a bill of rights that someone would come along some day and actually think they were the only rights individuals had.

Click to expand...

I was mostly responding to your phrasing. I agree with what your expanded explanation on the restricted claims to Federal Authority as documented by the Constitution. We could anchor the discussion in theory or in reality. In theory much of the way society is structured in in violation of Constitutional principles, but in reality I can't foresee undoing what has been built up over the years and starting from scratch, so libertarian principles have to be tempered by the constraints of the environment. I'm happy to engage on both the theoretical and the realist level so long as we all know what the boundaries of the discussion are so that I don't get fired upon for having theoretical failings when I'm discussing realist positions.

BTW, I have no problem with you using me as an example, but my politics, informed by my work as a geneticist, is pretty unique and doesn't fall anywhere near the median of conservatism or libertarianism, but when forced to choose, libertarianism is the closest label available.

new coup for you said:

there are four kinds of libertarians:

Secret Republicans: Libertarians that are libertarian until it violates some sacred Republican principle, usually drugs or Israel

Psychos: Compound dwelling heavily armed blackhelicoptertarians

College libertarians: Liberals that like to be faux-intellectual and contrarian with all their Democrat voting friends

Pauligans: Ron Paul cultists.

Click to expand...

We can always count on you to come into any thread about libertarianism and offer up your insults at us without adding anything to the discussion.

Ikari said:

We can always count on you to come into any thread about libertarianism and offer up your insults at us without adding anything to the discussion.

Click to expand...

It was kind of funny though.

SouthernDemocrat said:

Once again an authoritarian statement. The most fundamental principle of liberty is that your right to live your life the way you choose to do so goes so far as to not impede another individuals ability to do the same. The notion that its ok to restrict the freedoms of one group because by granting that group those freedoms it could be argued that a less desirable group might then be able to obtain them as well is an authoritarian argument.

Click to expand...

These matters are not so cut and dried. We're dealing with a society which has taken a cultural practice, marriage, and embedded it within the law and has directed legal and tax benefits be attached to the practice. If you want to separate custom from government control, then I have no problem with a strict libertarian approach to marriage and unhindered freedom. The problem is that we're not dealing with a strict theoretical approach here. The government redistributes benefits from one class of people, singles, to another class of people, marrieds. Now, with this being the case, the pure principles have to be muddied. So, the slippery slope argument, which was the point of my comment, is indeed quite a valid argument when the Gay Agenda has documented history of using the slippery slope argument to advance towards its goals. It's entirely legitimate to use the same tactic in response to evidence of the other side using the tactic.

SouthernDemocrat said:

It was kind of funny though.

Click to expand...

Not on the 100th time hearing it. We could just get a bot to replace NCFW's responses in libertarian threads.

RiverDad said:

These matters are not so cut and dried. We're dealing with a society which has taken a cultural practice, marriage, and embedded it within the law and has directed legal and tax benefits be attached to the practice. If you want to separate custom from government control, then I have no problem with a strict libertarian approach to marriage and unhindered freedom. The problem is that we're not dealing with a strict theoretical approach here. The government redistributes benefits from one class of people, singles, to another class of people, marrieds. Now, with this being the case, the pure principles have to be muddied. So, the slippery slope argument, which was the point of my comment, is indeed quite a valid argument when the Gay Agenda has documented history of using the slippery slope argument to advance towards its goals. It's entirely legitimate to use the same tactic in response to evidence of the other side using the tactic.

Click to expand...

The actual solution is to abolish the marriage license. Most everything you can get through marriage can be handled with separate contract. Also, there should be no tax benefits for getting married. Hurray for you, you're married. But you're still using the same amount of stuff and public resources as you were before so you shouldn't have your tax burden reduced over that of single people. Also, the child credit of 3000 per child with no saturation should be done away with as well. Especially considering families with children on the whole use more public services than single people.

Regardless, nix the marriage license and return it to the Church solely. I don't see why you need the government's permission to be married anyway. But if we keep it the way it is as a State issued and recognized contract, then there is no basis by which you can keep same sex couples out as contract is an inherent right.

Ikari said:

Also, there should be no tax benefits for getting married. Hurray for you, you're married. But you're still using the same amount of stuff and public resources as you were before so you shouldn't have your tax burden reduced over that of single people.

Click to expand...

That's a philosophical position, and to me at least, the position is dependent on the societal environment. Right now we live in a society where the state is quite intrusive in people's lives, and these intrusions distort behavior. That being the case, the state has a compelling interest to encourage family formation, the production of a new generation of citizens, etc.

Also, the child credit of 3000 per child with no saturation should be done away with as well. Especially considering families with children on the whole use more public services than single people.

Click to expand...

If we lived in a society characterized by a minimalist state, then I'd agree with you. However, the situation right now is quite different and the costs of raising children have been privatized while the benefits have been socialized, so a tax credit is only a very minor attempt to address this STATE-CREATED inequality.

But if we keep it the way it is as a State issued and recognized contract, then there is no basis by which you can keep same sex couples out as contract is an inherent right.

Click to expand...

Similarly there is no reason not to confer benefits on two best friends, a father and a daughter, a brother and a sister, a man and 3 women, etc.

The libertarian position that no instance of discrimination is an unqualified virtue is laughable.

RiverDad said:

These matters are not so cut and dried. We're dealing with a society which has taken a cultural practice, marriage, and embedded it within the law and has directed legal and tax benefits be attached to the practice. If you want to separate custom from government control, then I have no problem with a strict libertarian approach to marriage and unhindered freedom. The problem is that we're not dealing with a strict theoretical approach here. The government redistributes benefits from one class of people, singles, to another class of people, marrieds. Now, with this being the case, the pure principles have to be muddied. So, the slippery slope argument, which was the point of my comment, is indeed quite a valid argument when the Gay Agenda has documented history of using the slippery slope argument to advance towards its goals. It's entirely legitimate to use the same tactic in response to evidence of the other side using the tactic.

Click to expand...

From a purely pragmatic perspective though, in order to deny the privilege of government recognized marriage to a group, then you have to demonstrate how granting them that right / privilege impedes the rights of others. You can't argue that by giving them that privilege, they may try to use it to get another privilege you don't want them to have.

I might add, that social conservatives know this. They know they will eventually not prevail in the courts on this issue because of that. Thus they are trying to get a constitutional amendment restricting the privilege.

SouthernDemocrat said:

Ok, a lot of people claim they are Libertarian, but when you talk to them it seems like most of them are really just typical Republicans that call themselves libertarian because they think it sounds cool or something. You know like they are libertarian because they like low taxes and want few restrictions on gun ownership, but they are also pro big military, don't believe in a constitutional right to privacy, support various attempts at legislating morality and so on.

So what percentage of people that claim to be libertarian do you think are actually libertarian?

Click to expand...

Just like there are different schools of though with Liberalism and conservatism, there are different schools of thought with Libertarianism. There is a Libertarian left and right and there is also Paleolibertarianism. Because on my views on abortion, gay marriage and the death penalty I consider myself a combination of left and right Libertarianism. Paleolibertarians in my opinion are just Paleoconservatives who support free trade.

Left-libertarianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Paleolibertarianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Right-libertarianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

SouthernDemocrat said:

From a purely pragmatic perspective though, in order to deny the privilege of government recognized marriage to a group, then you have to demonstrate how granting them that right / privilege impedes the rights of others. You can't argue that by giving them that privilege, they may try to use it to get another privilege you don't want them to have.

Click to expand...

I've already laid out the objections, on this front, to gay marriage, in the gay marriage thread. A quick summary, laws change to reflect the experiences of those people participating in a regulated activity. For instance, work place laws have changed to accommodate the greater role of women in the workplace today compared to their presence in the workplace 50 and 100 years ago.

Secondly, society has gotten itself into this quandary by accepting the creeping intrusion of government into the realm of marriage. Where we used to have two widely separated, but still minimally interactive, realms, governance and custom, we now have these two realm more tightly integrated, so governance changes can have large impact on the customs of society. Customs have a very powerful effect on life outcomes for citizens. To give you an example, in much of Africa inheritance flows from father to the children of his sister because relationship customs in marriages are such that husbands cannot be sure that the children borne to him by his wife are his own. This custom ripples through society and affects all sorts of downstream issues:

There are two reasons 11-year-old Chikumbutso Zuze never sees his three sisters, why he seldom has a full belly, why he sleeps packed sardinelike with six cousins on the dirt floor of his aunt's thatched mud hut.

One is AIDS, which claimed his father in 2000 and his mother in 2001. The other is his father's nephew, a tall, light-complexioned man whom Chikumbutso knows only as Mr. Sululu.

It was Mr. Sululu who came to his village five years ago, after his father died, and commandeered all of the family's belongings -- mattresses, chairs and, most important, the family's green Toyota pickup, an almost unimaginable luxury in this, one of the poorest nations on earth. And it was Mr. Sululu who rejected the pleas of the boy's mother, herself dying of AIDS, to leave the truck so that her children would have an inheritance to sustain them after her death. . . . .

Actually, the answer is simple: custom. Throughout sub-Saharan Africa the death of a father automatically entitles his side of the family to claim most, if not all, of the property he leaves behind, even if it leaves his survivors destitute.

Click to expand...

The downstream consequences of government taking an active role in changing societal customs and then promoting and incentivizing the redefinition of marriage and family can affect everyone in society.

We don't live in a society which is characterized by a minimalist government. So, until we do it's a fool's game to pretend that governance can be enacted while leaving the enforcement of customs strictly to the community.

Lastly, libertarianism is NOT solely about gay marriage.

RiverDad said:

There's a Constitutional Right to Privacy? Was that written in invisible ink or something?

Click to expand...

See: Ninth Amendment.

I don't think it's that cut-and-dry. The Libertarian Party platform does not dictate the reality of libertarianism as a whole.

I was against the decision to invade Iraq, but I've always argued strongly in favor of finishing the job as a matter of practicality.

I dislike very much the fact that we give Israel such a substantial amount of foreign aid, but I unequivocally affirm their right to exist and I almost always agree with the actions they take against Palestine in defense of their nation.

I am vehemently pro-life but this is not due to any religious belief. I hold that the unborn are persons deserving of rights, as such, this is in no way contradictory to my libertarian ideology.

I'm also a strong proponent of the Fourteenth Amendment.

But I'm in staunch opposition to NSA wire-tapping, FISA, and the Patriot Act.

new coup for you said:

there are four kinds of libertarians:

Secret Republicans: Libertarians that are libertarian until it violates some sacred Republican principle, usually drugs or Israel

Psychos: Compound dwelling heavily armed blackhelicoptertarians

College libertarians: Liberals that like to be faux-intellectual and contrarian with all their Democrat voting friends

Pauligans: Ron Paul cultists.

Click to expand...

It's better than being a naive poser who obtained his political perspective from MTV and Hollywood.

new coup for you said:

there are four kinds of libertarians:

Secret Republicans: Libertarians that are libertarian until it violates some sacred Republican principle, usually drugs or Israel

Psychos: Compound dwelling heavily armed blackhelicoptertarians

College libertarians: Liberals that like to be faux-intellectual and contrarian with all their Democrat voting friends

Pauligans: Ron Paul cultists.

Click to expand...

dude everyone knows there are 5

SouthernDemocrat said:

Personally, I know a lot of people that claim to be libertarians. Most of them have defended the war in Iraq to me.

Click to expand...

The war in Iraq was the result of not finishing it right in 91, the oil for food scandal, American policy since 91, and saddams bluf.

Defended the suspension of Habeas Corpus for Gitmo Detainees.

Click to expand...

War captured are held for the duration of the war. This is how it has been throughout all of time. prove me wrong.



How is holding war captured for the duration of a war not Libertarian? what did washington do with war catured? :roll:

Defended wiretaps.

Click to expand...

of foreign nationals, sure. this is a war. on Americans, no way.

Defended huge defense spending bills.

Click to expand...

The war needs to be paid for. but the rest of the spending that you left out? needs to be cut.

Were anti-gay marriage (not because they thought that marriage should not even be dealt with in government at all, but rather they used the old slipperly slope argument), and basically held countless views that were "statist".

Click to expand...

The Government should be out of the marriage business.

I have a lot of respect for libertarian ideas. Some I agree with. However I don't know a lot of actual real libertarians.

Click to expand...

Do you agree with 100% of Democrat ideals and policies?